CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 105, 3 May 1917, Page 6

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

fertilisers for strppuEßs^ SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT His Honor Mr. Justice Sim delivered judgment at the Supreme Court this morning m the appeal by Leonard Jas. Barton Grant, inspector under the Fertilisers Act, 1908, against the decision of the Magistrate at Tauranga in favour of the Tauranga Co-operative Dairy Association, Ltd. The question to be determined was whether or not the respondent was a vendor within trtie meaning of the Act. The magistrate held that the respondent company was not a. vendor. The respondent company had, from time to time, at the request of a number of its milk suppliers, ordered fertilisers from Auckland. The fertilisers were consigned to the respondent at Tauranga. and upon arrival there were delivered, by direction of the respondent, to the different purchasers. The purchase money was deducted by the respondent from the amounts payable to the suppliers foT milk. The term "vendor, " said his Honor, was defined by section 2 of the Act. to mean any person who, either on his own account ox on behalf of any other person, sells in the ordinary course of business any fertiliser. It was contended by Mr. Maye that there were two contracts of sale, one between the Auckland merchant and the respondent, and another between the respondent and each milk supplier, and that by virtue of these contracts, respondent became a vendor of fertilisers. This, in his Honor's opinion, was not the legal effect of what was done by the parties. The relation between the milk supplier and the respondent was that of principal and agent. The respondent was the agent of the supplier to purchase the fertilisers for him, and by the terms ot employment the respondent was to make the purchase in his own name and to pay the price, in the first instance, out of his own money. Such an agent might be an " unpaid seller." within the meaning of section 40 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1908, and might have the rights conferred by section 41 of that Act, hut, in his Honor's opinion, he was not a vendor within the meaning of the Fertilisers Act, 1908. The appeal would, therefore, be dismissed, with £6 6/ costs to. the respondent.